It is part of the data required to determine accurate building movement, which in turn allows determination of initiation sequence events. It is not appropriate to expand on such without much supporting detail (that I don't have time to go into at the moment), but essentially points strongly towards core failure in advance of south face failure. And some other *stuff*.
Well you obviously aren't an engineer, or anyone well-versed in architecture, demolition or the building trades, so what the **** is the difference to you? What do you hope to accomplish with this analysis?
No, I mean't exactly what I said.
Hilarious. More detailed ? Absolute rubbish.
Then show me the more detailed data which determines the angle through which the upper section of WTC 1 rotated before vertical drop ensued
Where ?Kent1 said:
I'm not interested in your obsession to present NISTs poorly worded, ambiguous and sloppy work, full of contradictions as being the fault of the reader.
No. NIST states, repeatedly...
Sure, but utterly irrelevant.
No.
No. The PROBLEM is that rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south DID NOT OCCUR before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.
Poorly worded, yes; ambiguous, yes; sloppy, opinion; full of contradictions, definitely not in this case, as the ambiguities are resolved by fact checking. Bazant understood it properly and he's a qualified person.
Bazant definitely doesn't interpret they meant the top building section. He's an engineer and his interpretation is in a peer-reviewed paper. Can you show another peer-reviewed, published paper written by a qualified engineer where the interpretation matches yours? If so, you have a case.
Hey, I also pointed out one, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6246923&postcount=1033
I don't care.
Whatever, though I recommend you read the extensive threads on IB at the911forum before reasserting your views on the mechanisms, and full understanding of how trace data is used to help determine initiation sequencing before asserting that alternate views are based upon looking at images (which is what you appear to be saying).
As I stated in my first post in Figure 6-8 "UPPER building section moving downward" this is at 10:28:18 noted in table 6-1
Dodge. But I'll agree that its poorly worded. But the ambiguities are resolved by simple fact checking.
Yet again your missing table 1 and figure 6-8.
Why what did I say wrong. Have you looked at the section yet? pg156-166
I am not interested in your obsession.
You were interested before.I am not interested in your obsession.
Rotation of the upper section of WTC 1 of APPROXIMATELY 1 DEGREE to the south ocurred before all four corners of WTC 1 began to descend vertically.
(no matter how many times it is stated in the NIST report that *Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south ocurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity. *)
Just the opposite.It would be at 0.00001 degree (like close to zero, but the building has not started to fall vertically, it is rotating; rotation, is that not in the 911 truth cult book of stupid claims)I am not interested in your obsession.
Rotation of the upper section of WTC 1 of APPROXIMATELY 1 DEGREE to the south ocurred before all four corners of WTC 1 began to descend vertically.
(no matter how many times it is stated in the NIST report that *Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south ocurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity. *)
; add geometry to the list of talents not used by 911 truth. Can 911 truth get anything right? But NIST is right anyway; you don't understand geometry or you can't read for comprehension; which is it? What will you do? lollol. ObsessionYou were interested before.
So we are on the same page now?
You know its ok to say your wrong from time to time. I wont bite.
We wont think any less of you.
lol. Obsession
I don't care, and I won't care until you show a powerful reason why I should. I've said it looks reasonable but I didn't care to check. For example, I'd have to check if you merely look at the vertical movement and you forget to check if it corresponds to pivoting (noted by the horizontal movement) instead of an actual release of the corner. If the core fails, I'd also be interested in seeing the tilt angle and horizontal displacement after a three story fall, which would be important for a column-to-column impact. So far, I don't care and you keep failing at raising any interest on that, because you (plural) just state interpretations of your observations which I don't have a reason to believe. In order to have a case, you need to explain both towers, not just one, and the notable differences in behavior between them are a tombstone in your hypotheses. Major Tom interpreted the observed bowing in WTC2 as spanning a multiple of three floors matching the points with connections in the core columns, but his own proof proved him wrong. That alone proves his lack of qualification to draw conclusions from the observables, plus his bias while doing so. I have not seen anyone who has proved his qualification confirm any of these findings. Tony doesn't count, he has shown enough incompetence already and I think you might even agree.
It seems you're reading too much into my words. I don't care if NIST is right or wrong with the conclusions on the collapse mechanism. They already proved the towers were doomed. See this post by tfk:
Me neither, except if these are used as an ad-hominem attack against an authority in the field, which is what Major Tom has been doing here.
Tom and I have discussed CC creep before...
Yes, and I think it's a strong case. Regardless of the accuracy, it shows how the fire caused ever increasing creep making some columns fail before the fuel* was exhausted. I've seen several architects and engineers here in Spain saying that they supposed that the towers would fall before it happened. So the case is strong:
